dhodory

There might be some legal issues here. Now, I'm not saying that in 99/100 cases you wouldn't get away with doing it, but . . . from a legal perspective someone COULD (if they were so inclined) take issue with such an act. And it would probably not be worth the dealers time/money to go to court over it.

On the other hand whoever put the deposit down could get around your attempt at trying to do the "right thing" by simply going through the motions of buying/leasing the car and then re-selling the vehicle himself. The BIG problem there is the issue of sales tax (paying it twice) as well as potential credit bureau issues (of the original buyer). Of course, for this to be financially feasible, the car has got to be REALLY hot (or the original buyer has to have negotiated a purchase below sticker to absorb some of the sales tax issue upon resale).

Scott D.

I think we all understand basic economics. So you don't have to explain it to us (especially me -- my college major was Economics).

I think we're simply expressing our opinions that economic decisions should not operate in an environment devoid of ethical considerations. Otherwise, market chaos and social instability ensue.

It's one thing to speculate in a socially sanctioned "options" market (e.g. Chicago Board of Trade, one of the <b> purest </b> forms of supply and demand on earth). It's another to try and jack up the price when you're not providing any real risk management to the market as a whole.

mpm

and the market price is... zero. Thanks for playing our game, we have some lovely parting gifts

dhodory

Even the most stringent of gov't regulations (such as the options area you sighted) cannot imply a sense of ethics. What most gov't regs. serve to do is to apply a set of "rules" that everyone operates by. Most of the time these rules are already outdated or out-moded by the time they are implemented (witness IRS tax code). Why? Simply because people would prefer to (and do) operate without them.

And to refute your other point: there is a value being provided in terms of "risk mitigation"; that is the "risk" (if it can be called such) that someone cannot have what they want. Simple, sad, but true.

Lastly, the value equation is ultimately determined by the buyer. He/she will not pay for something that does not provide value. In the case of the ability to buy a car, the equation becomes really simple. Either the car is in high enough demand (or there are enough short sighted, greedy, immature people out there who gotta' have it now) to charge a premium for the ability to buy it earlier than others . . . . or it is not.

The concept of supply and demand is simple (and immutable -sp?). The concept of "ethics" as you put it is complex, changing, and open for arguement, interpretation, based on perspective, and lastly transient (what is ethical today may not be what is ethical tomorrow, or what was ethical yesterday) . . . .so let's not waste our time discussing the concept (is it is little more than a convenient construct) of ethics.